Saturday, April 28, 2007
Jefferson Park Update: Pinnacle Station Close to Approval
The Pinnacle Station project proposed for the Jefferson Park neighborhood by the AG Spanos Corporation is on the verge of approval by Denver City Council.
Pinnacle Station is a 340-unit, five-building apartment project planned for the site of the old Baby Doe’s and Chile Pepper restaurants overlooking I-25 just north of Mile High Stadium. Many residents in the Jefferson Park neighborhood have opposed the development since its introduction over two years ago, claiming that the project’s massing is out of scale with the adjacent area, and that the project fails to incorporate a number of design and programmatic elements that are called for in the Jefferson Park neighborhood plan. The neighborhood association, Jefferson Park United Neighbors (JPUN), has voted overwhelmingly against this project three times in the past two years. For additional background information on this project, check out my blogs of October 11, 2005, March 14, 2006, and June 14, 2006. Also, Westword recently featured a nice article on the subject by Joel Warner (Moving On Up) along with a recent follow-up (Contested Development) by Joel in the Westword blog.
The project went before City Council on final reading last Monday, and included a lively four-hour public hearing. In the end, Council decided to delay their vote on approving Pinnacle Station by one week. One of the many concerns raised by neighborhood residents involved the shadows that the project will cast on several small homes along the alley behind River Drive. Council asked the developer to prepare a detailed shadow study and present it at next Monday’s meeting. While JPUN will not have a chance to independently verify the developer’s analysis, the city planning office will give the shadow study a review and offer its opinion as to the study’s validity.
Here are the latest renderings of the project. First, the site plan:
Building 5, from Clay Street looking down Frontview Crescent:
The “view corridor” at Frontview Crescent and Bryant Street between Buildings 3 and 4:
I’ve gone on record as being opposed to this project, and today I’ll state my reasons one more time. Just like JPUN, I support the redevelopment of the site. The two restaurant buildings have seen better days, and the time has come for a higher and better use for the site. I am certainly not anti-urban development. But the larger the project and the more prominent the location, the more important it is that the project be exceptional. Pinnacle Station is anything but.
New infill projects in the Downtown area, particularly ones of this size, should be urban. Urban means mixed uses. Besides its 340 residential units, Pinnacle Station has a measly 4,000 SF of retail and a few live-work units, and the developer recently added those to their plans only after being pressed to do so by JPUN. The neighborhood asked for 12,000 SF of retail.
Urban means a mix of rental and for-sale units. Pinnacle Station is 100% rental. Jefferson Park already has one of the lowest home ownership rates in the city. With the addition of Pinnacle Station’s 340 rental units, the Jefferson Park neighborhood will be about 95% rental. The developer has refused to incorporate any for-sale units in the project.
Urban means mixed income. Pinnacle Station will be 100% “luxury” apartments. Because the project is rental and not for-sale, the city’s 10% “affordable units” requirement does not apply. The developer has refused to provide for any affordable/workforce housing units in the project.
Urban means variety in the form and scale of the buildings. Pinnacle Station features five monolithic buildings that have “suburban” written all over them. The proposed buildings do not vary in their form and scale, nor do they relate to the surrounding urban context. The project site borders River Drive and West 23rd Avenue, both of which feature small, historic houses. A good design would respect the small scale of these historic homes by placing townhomes, rowhomes, or shorter multi-family buildings adjacent to them, and then placing taller, higher-density buildings along Bryant on the bluff overlooking the expressway. The developer’s plans call for a six-story building (Building 5) that is over 400 feet long to border the little historic homes along River Drive. To be fair, I must point out that the developer has recently modified the design of Building 5 (in response to the neighborhood’s concerns over this issue), and the modification is not reflected in the rendering above. The design change takes the four-story upper part of Building 5 and divides it into two masses, separated by a 25-foot gap. This will visually help break up the massive appearance of Building 5, but it doesn’t do much to address the lack of compatibility in scale to the adjacent single-family homes. Building 5 is also the subject of the shadow study discussed above.
The neighborhood association offered an alternative plan, shown in the sketch below, which addresses many of the issues I’ve been discussing. Take a look:
Unfortunately, the developer dismissed the neighborhood’s proposal.
The AG Spanos company is a suburban developer. Take a look at their project portfolio on their corporate website. I randomly picked about a dozen of their “communities” and viewed their locations and urban context using Google Earth. Not a single one of them was in a downtown location. Most of them, in fact, were located in exurban areas, bordered by large undeveloped tracts of land, shopping malls, office parks, and freeway interchanges. The Spanos project closest to a downtown that I could find was in Houston, and it was still five miles away from Downtown Houston and is in what looks like a commercial area.
Spanos has a suburban design template, and they make their money by replicating that template, with as few changes as possible, over and over again. Find a big suburban site, plop down their automobile-oriented “luxury community” and move on to the next location. That’s what they do, and that’s exactly what they’re doing here. The problem is, Jefferson Park is not on the exurban edge but on the edge of Downtown Denver.
There are other infill projects that have been built recently in the Downtown area that are similar to Pinnacle Station, such as the Metro in the Prospect district or the Jefferson at CityGate project in River North. But those projects are located in industrial areas that do not have historic single-family homes next door, and they don’t have the prominent “overlook” location like the Baby Doe’s/Chile Pepper site.
This entire Pinnacle Station project is a major missed opportunity. Given the historic character of Jefferson Park, the proximity of the site to the Downtown Aquarium, Elitch Gardens, Invesco Field at Mile High, and the rest of the amenities of the Central Platte Valley, and the panoramic views from (and of) the site, this development should have been held to the highest of standards. This project could have featured both condos and apartments in a wide variety of sizes and price ranges, in an architecturally-diverse collection of urban townhomes, low-rises and mid-rises, and integrated with a cool public plaza overlooking Downtown bordered by ground-floor shops and restaurants. It could have, but it doesn’t.
Kudos to Jefferson Park United Neighbors for putting up the good fight and demanding excellence in the development of our urban core. Too bad they fought this battle alone. The city really dropped the ball on this one.
Pinnacle Station is a 340-unit, five-building apartment project planned for the site of the old Baby Doe’s and Chile Pepper restaurants overlooking I-25 just north of Mile High Stadium. Many residents in the Jefferson Park neighborhood have opposed the development since its introduction over two years ago, claiming that the project’s massing is out of scale with the adjacent area, and that the project fails to incorporate a number of design and programmatic elements that are called for in the Jefferson Park neighborhood plan. The neighborhood association, Jefferson Park United Neighbors (JPUN), has voted overwhelmingly against this project three times in the past two years. For additional background information on this project, check out my blogs of October 11, 2005, March 14, 2006, and June 14, 2006. Also, Westword recently featured a nice article on the subject by Joel Warner (Moving On Up) along with a recent follow-up (Contested Development) by Joel in the Westword blog.
The project went before City Council on final reading last Monday, and included a lively four-hour public hearing. In the end, Council decided to delay their vote on approving Pinnacle Station by one week. One of the many concerns raised by neighborhood residents involved the shadows that the project will cast on several small homes along the alley behind River Drive. Council asked the developer to prepare a detailed shadow study and present it at next Monday’s meeting. While JPUN will not have a chance to independently verify the developer’s analysis, the city planning office will give the shadow study a review and offer its opinion as to the study’s validity.
Here are the latest renderings of the project. First, the site plan:
Building 5, from Clay Street looking down Frontview Crescent:
The “view corridor” at Frontview Crescent and Bryant Street between Buildings 3 and 4:
I’ve gone on record as being opposed to this project, and today I’ll state my reasons one more time. Just like JPUN, I support the redevelopment of the site. The two restaurant buildings have seen better days, and the time has come for a higher and better use for the site. I am certainly not anti-urban development. But the larger the project and the more prominent the location, the more important it is that the project be exceptional. Pinnacle Station is anything but.
New infill projects in the Downtown area, particularly ones of this size, should be urban. Urban means mixed uses. Besides its 340 residential units, Pinnacle Station has a measly 4,000 SF of retail and a few live-work units, and the developer recently added those to their plans only after being pressed to do so by JPUN. The neighborhood asked for 12,000 SF of retail.
Urban means a mix of rental and for-sale units. Pinnacle Station is 100% rental. Jefferson Park already has one of the lowest home ownership rates in the city. With the addition of Pinnacle Station’s 340 rental units, the Jefferson Park neighborhood will be about 95% rental. The developer has refused to incorporate any for-sale units in the project.
Urban means mixed income. Pinnacle Station will be 100% “luxury” apartments. Because the project is rental and not for-sale, the city’s 10% “affordable units” requirement does not apply. The developer has refused to provide for any affordable/workforce housing units in the project.
Urban means variety in the form and scale of the buildings. Pinnacle Station features five monolithic buildings that have “suburban” written all over them. The proposed buildings do not vary in their form and scale, nor do they relate to the surrounding urban context. The project site borders River Drive and West 23rd Avenue, both of which feature small, historic houses. A good design would respect the small scale of these historic homes by placing townhomes, rowhomes, or shorter multi-family buildings adjacent to them, and then placing taller, higher-density buildings along Bryant on the bluff overlooking the expressway. The developer’s plans call for a six-story building (Building 5) that is over 400 feet long to border the little historic homes along River Drive. To be fair, I must point out that the developer has recently modified the design of Building 5 (in response to the neighborhood’s concerns over this issue), and the modification is not reflected in the rendering above. The design change takes the four-story upper part of Building 5 and divides it into two masses, separated by a 25-foot gap. This will visually help break up the massive appearance of Building 5, but it doesn’t do much to address the lack of compatibility in scale to the adjacent single-family homes. Building 5 is also the subject of the shadow study discussed above.
The neighborhood association offered an alternative plan, shown in the sketch below, which addresses many of the issues I’ve been discussing. Take a look:
Unfortunately, the developer dismissed the neighborhood’s proposal.
The AG Spanos company is a suburban developer. Take a look at their project portfolio on their corporate website. I randomly picked about a dozen of their “communities” and viewed their locations and urban context using Google Earth. Not a single one of them was in a downtown location. Most of them, in fact, were located in exurban areas, bordered by large undeveloped tracts of land, shopping malls, office parks, and freeway interchanges. The Spanos project closest to a downtown that I could find was in Houston, and it was still five miles away from Downtown Houston and is in what looks like a commercial area.
Spanos has a suburban design template, and they make their money by replicating that template, with as few changes as possible, over and over again. Find a big suburban site, plop down their automobile-oriented “luxury community” and move on to the next location. That’s what they do, and that’s exactly what they’re doing here. The problem is, Jefferson Park is not on the exurban edge but on the edge of Downtown Denver.
There are other infill projects that have been built recently in the Downtown area that are similar to Pinnacle Station, such as the Metro in the Prospect district or the Jefferson at CityGate project in River North. But those projects are located in industrial areas that do not have historic single-family homes next door, and they don’t have the prominent “overlook” location like the Baby Doe’s/Chile Pepper site.
This entire Pinnacle Station project is a major missed opportunity. Given the historic character of Jefferson Park, the proximity of the site to the Downtown Aquarium, Elitch Gardens, Invesco Field at Mile High, and the rest of the amenities of the Central Platte Valley, and the panoramic views from (and of) the site, this development should have been held to the highest of standards. This project could have featured both condos and apartments in a wide variety of sizes and price ranges, in an architecturally-diverse collection of urban townhomes, low-rises and mid-rises, and integrated with a cool public plaza overlooking Downtown bordered by ground-floor shops and restaurants. It could have, but it doesn’t.
Kudos to Jefferson Park United Neighbors for putting up the good fight and demanding excellence in the development of our urban core. Too bad they fought this battle alone. The city really dropped the ball on this one.
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
It's a shame that it looks like the project will be approved.
I think the city should grant the PCD committees of neighborhood organizations like JPUN and HUNI one "free" veto of a development proposal per year, or at least in some specified amount of time. JPUN has never in its history gone on record at opposing a large-scale development, and this would certainly be a time to use this "veto power." The very threat of a "veto" would force Spanos to work with the neighborhood instead of completely ignoring their concerns.
The people in JPUN are generally well-informed neighbors with quality experience in neighborhood planning looking to guide the best development to the neighborhood. They're working for free and don't have much of a vested interest other than seeing quality developent in the neighborhood. They're not a bunch of mindless NIMBY-ites. I think the city should take JPUN more seriously.
I think the city should grant the PCD committees of neighborhood organizations like JPUN and HUNI one "free" veto of a development proposal per year, or at least in some specified amount of time. JPUN has never in its history gone on record at opposing a large-scale development, and this would certainly be a time to use this "veto power." The very threat of a "veto" would force Spanos to work with the neighborhood instead of completely ignoring their concerns.
The people in JPUN are generally well-informed neighbors with quality experience in neighborhood planning looking to guide the best development to the neighborhood. They're working for free and don't have much of a vested interest other than seeing quality developent in the neighborhood. They're not a bunch of mindless NIMBY-ites. I think the city should take JPUN more seriously.
Permalink Posted by 
: 4/28/2007 05:38:00 PM
: 4/28/2007 05:38:00 PM
Ken - AGSpanos liked to tout the Houston project as an "urban" project. I doubt if anyone on Council knows that Houston is widely known as the largest city in the country without zoning laws. I can only hope that Mayor Hick disciplines the Policy Makers (Peter Park & Tyler Gibbs) at CPD before his legacy is co-opted to developers.
It's also too bad that Councilman Rick Garcia seemingly abandoned his constituents on this issue. As noted the very-informed neighborhood association voted OVERWHELMINGLY against this project 3 times, for the first time in JPUN history. I would've hoped that, even if the council member for District 1 is not moved by these facts, that other members of council might be (especially Boigon and Linkhart who also repesent District 1). This episdoe is all-too-depressing for those of us who, as a rule, trust and defend local government.
Permalink Posted by : 4/29/2007 08:42:00 AM
: 4/29/2007 08:42:00 AM
"This entire Pinnacle Station project is a major missed opportunity. ....this development should have been held to the highest of standards."
Amen Ken! That's what the neighbors of JPUN screamed for but instead our Councilman dismissed it as "...nothing I haven’t heard before…nothing to give me pause”.
It is a real shame it's not a better project. The process needs to be improved. Either the planning department needs to work toward more than minimum requirements or City Council needs to step up with leadership and vision in reviewing projects. It's not too late...let's hope City Council will somehow see their way to send it back to planning or, better yet, veto it outright tomorrow!
Amen Ken! That's what the neighbors of JPUN screamed for but instead our Councilman dismissed it as "...nothing I haven’t heard before…nothing to give me pause”.
It is a real shame it's not a better project. The process needs to be improved. Either the planning department needs to work toward more than minimum requirements or City Council needs to step up with leadership and vision in reviewing projects. It's not too late...let's hope City Council will somehow see their way to send it back to planning or, better yet, veto it outright tomorrow!
Permalink Posted by : 4/29/2007 11:31:00 AM
: 4/29/2007 11:31:00 AM
From the photos posted here, the project looks like it will resemble an east-coast University. Those are made of large buildings that are usually surrounded by single-family homes or former single-family homes made into frat houses and student groups.
The architecture looks nice, and since the project is dense, I'm not opposed to the "suburban" look of the layout; a little spacey green area in an urban setting is not a problem for me.
The lack of low-income housing is annoying, though. So is the overwhelmingly upper-class nature of the development, complete with outdoor swimming pools and courtyards surrounded on 3 sides. It's as close as you can get to having a gated community short of building the gates.
This development isn't great, but all is not lost. There is an abundance of developable land in the neighborhood for future, better projects. Aside from that, the development itself might bring enough money and interest into the area to spark the remodeling of existing homes and addition of new buildings where possible, creating a truly mixed neighborhood like Capitol Hill or the CU area in Boulder, with single-family homes and apartments - spanning all levels of income - existing side by side.
The architecture looks nice, and since the project is dense, I'm not opposed to the "suburban" look of the layout; a little spacey green area in an urban setting is not a problem for me.
The lack of low-income housing is annoying, though. So is the overwhelmingly upper-class nature of the development, complete with outdoor swimming pools and courtyards surrounded on 3 sides. It's as close as you can get to having a gated community short of building the gates.
This development isn't great, but all is not lost. There is an abundance of developable land in the neighborhood for future, better projects. Aside from that, the development itself might bring enough money and interest into the area to spark the remodeling of existing homes and addition of new buildings where possible, creating a truly mixed neighborhood like Capitol Hill or the CU area in Boulder, with single-family homes and apartments - spanning all levels of income - existing side by side.
So many good points Ken. I know you've been following this one closely for a while.
I thinks its reasonable to have that density right there. It would have been nice if there was more of a mix of condo and apts maybe a combination of mini projects breaking it all up. Introducing all of those apts to an area that is not completely underway is a little more than disappointing.
I thinks its reasonable to have that density right there. It would have been nice if there was more of a mix of condo and apts maybe a combination of mini projects breaking it all up. Introducing all of those apts to an area that is not completely underway is a little more than disappointing.
Permalink Posted by : 4/30/2007 07:55:00 AM
: 4/30/2007 07:55:00 AM
Agree w/ most of the negative comments regarding its lack of urbanism.
Will note that architecturally it’s extremely suburban as well. It’s the cheapest possible version of faux historic architecture, designed by someone without the slightest clue towards correct proportion or styling. Exactly what you would expect from a suburban developer trying to lure in oblivious buyers with manufactured history.
I am far from opposed to historic styles. It is more than possible to build a great looking contemporary revival buildings, and the Colotecture we all know and love is nothing but faux industrial warehouse revival, after all… But THIS is all wrong.
Here’s one hint, just to get the ball rolling: They didn’t use quite so much EIFS back in the day.
Will note that architecturally it’s extremely suburban as well. It’s the cheapest possible version of faux historic architecture, designed by someone without the slightest clue towards correct proportion or styling. Exactly what you would expect from a suburban developer trying to lure in oblivious buyers with manufactured history.
I am far from opposed to historic styles. It is more than possible to build a great looking contemporary revival buildings, and the Colotecture we all know and love is nothing but faux industrial warehouse revival, after all… But THIS is all wrong.
Here’s one hint, just to get the ball rolling: They didn’t use quite so much EIFS back in the day.
I'd like to point out that there is A LOT of money at stake here. AGSpanos has hired numerous local consultants on this project that are well known for ramrodding developments through the city gov't. These same consultants claim to 'friends' of the city... but like it's always been, there will always be the Mr. Potter's of the world, those that who would sell their own grandmother into slavery if the price was right.
This is yet another example of a city gov't machine bumbling through the process and selling it's vision out for nickels.
Ken, thanks for pointing out the obvious blunders that have been made by both the developers and those that claim to be the 'guardians of the people,' in regards to this choice site being wasted for this monolithic stucco box. This is definitely a wasted opportunity. This commentary by Ken is significant, as he's one of the foremost experts of infill projects in the country.
Developers of Denver: JPUN is not anti-developent in the keenest sense, we have not opposed any rezone applications until this one, however, when a project lacks vision, creativity and purpose, is there really a reason to stand behind it?
This project will haunt Jefferson Park and Denver for decades to come. Eventually the developer will sell it, and those elected officials that approve it will come and go, but there it will be, a monumental eyesore to come, a giant stucco turd left in our backyard for us to deal with, all because those that claim to 'represent' us have been bought off, lock, stock and barrel. Selling out the vision of what could be, to those with the most $$ (not necessarily the 'best' plan).
This is yet another example of a city gov't machine bumbling through the process and selling it's vision out for nickels.
Ken, thanks for pointing out the obvious blunders that have been made by both the developers and those that claim to be the 'guardians of the people,' in regards to this choice site being wasted for this monolithic stucco box. This is definitely a wasted opportunity. This commentary by Ken is significant, as he's one of the foremost experts of infill projects in the country.
Developers of Denver: JPUN is not anti-developent in the keenest sense, we have not opposed any rezone applications until this one, however, when a project lacks vision, creativity and purpose, is there really a reason to stand behind it?
This project will haunt Jefferson Park and Denver for decades to come. Eventually the developer will sell it, and those elected officials that approve it will come and go, but there it will be, a monumental eyesore to come, a giant stucco turd left in our backyard for us to deal with, all because those that claim to 'represent' us have been bought off, lock, stock and barrel. Selling out the vision of what could be, to those with the most $$ (not necessarily the 'best' plan).
Permalink Posted by : 4/30/2007 10:20:00 AM
: 4/30/2007 10:20:00 AM
Mixed-use, pedestrian friendly, urban development... More vertical mass, less horizontal mass. All of the buzzwords of intelligent urban design, and the opposite of Pinnacle Station.
Permalink Posted by : 4/30/2007 03:11:00 PM
: 4/30/2007 03:11:00 PM
SHAME ON DENVER !!! What a waste of land, another unattractive,
conservative suburban project in the middle of town, only to add to the never ending collection of brown and beige buildings. The City should not allow or even consider anymore mediocre projects like this one.
conservative suburban project in the middle of town, only to add to the never ending collection of brown and beige buildings. The City should not allow or even consider anymore mediocre projects like this one.
Permalink Posted by : 5/01/2007 08:55:00 AM
: 5/01/2007 08:55:00 AM
There was a meeting last night 4/30/07 to discuss the shadow study. Anyone attend that meeting or can anyone give us an update?
Permalink Posted by : 5/01/2007 11:00:00 AM
: 5/01/2007 11:00:00 AM
At the 4/30/07 meeting, the council APPROVED the rezoning on a vote of 9-1, I think. MacKenzie abstained and Robb voted no. The other members, led by the loquacious Mr. Garcia, jumped on board the Spanos express.
Permalink Posted by : 5/01/2007 03:42:00 PM
: 5/01/2007 03:42:00 PM
Here is what Westword reported May 1:
Despite the nieghbors’ concerns, Denver City Council voted last night -- with only Jeanne Robb opposing -- to rezone the area in question so A.G. Spanos could move forward with Pinnacle Station. In other words, JPUN lost.
Despite the nieghbors’ concerns, Denver City Council voted last night -- with only Jeanne Robb opposing -- to rezone the area in question so A.G. Spanos could move forward with Pinnacle Station. In other words, JPUN lost.
Permalink Posted by : 5/01/2007 04:35:00 PM
: 5/01/2007 04:35:00 PM
Am I the only one on the planet FOR this project? My wife and I live near 23rd & Federal, and this site's been a dump and an eyesore since we moved in back in 2002.
Maybe the Pinnacle Station project is not 100% perfect, but how long is that site going to sit there collecting broken beer bottles, graffiti, and tumbleweeds?
These are good looking buildings that will hopefully bring 1000+ higher income residents to the neighborhood and maybe spur some retail development along Federal other than the new check cashing place, run down laundromat, and used tire stores that litter the area and beg for redevelopment.
If the council went back to the drawing board on this project and Spanos finally said "screw it" and sold the site after another year of wrangling and getting shot down 70-3 again, how long would it be before we'd have a project for the site that you'd all agree on? 5 more years? 10 more years? That's not acceptable.
Woudldn't the "diversity" of the area which people keep crying that this project will ruin be personified by higher income, luxury-apartment living singles living next to folks living in a restored 1890's Victorian next to working-class Hispanic families? Sounds like diversity to me.
Sorry I'm a little cynical here, but this project and the River Clay project are the best thing that's happened to this - no offense - run down area since . . . well, probably ever.
Maybe the Pinnacle Station project is not 100% perfect, but how long is that site going to sit there collecting broken beer bottles, graffiti, and tumbleweeds?
These are good looking buildings that will hopefully bring 1000+ higher income residents to the neighborhood and maybe spur some retail development along Federal other than the new check cashing place, run down laundromat, and used tire stores that litter the area and beg for redevelopment.
If the council went back to the drawing board on this project and Spanos finally said "screw it" and sold the site after another year of wrangling and getting shot down 70-3 again, how long would it be before we'd have a project for the site that you'd all agree on? 5 more years? 10 more years? That's not acceptable.
Woudldn't the "diversity" of the area which people keep crying that this project will ruin be personified by higher income, luxury-apartment living singles living next to folks living in a restored 1890's Victorian next to working-class Hispanic families? Sounds like diversity to me.
Sorry I'm a little cynical here, but this project and the River Clay project are the best thing that's happened to this - no offense - run down area since . . . well, probably ever.
Permalink Posted by : 5/04/2007 03:31:00 PM
: 5/04/2007 03:31:00 PM
Ahhh shucks, they really should just keep this entire property as the abandoned stink hole it is. I say they put up a chain link fence around the entire property line and leave it like that. Then for a good hoot throw more beer bottles, trash and other paraphenalia behind the fence to give it more of an urban feel. Then, when any other developer comes around looking to purchase the trash heap you can tell them to keep the urban scale and make sure the abandoned restaurant buildings remain so that we may pay homage to it for the next century. Honestly, I'm quite certain the new owners at Riverclay and Zocalo would appreciate the nasty landfill rather than an apartment community. This is a city and we most certainly cannot have detached 4-5 story buildings surrounded by greenery and such. That would be ludicrous. You all tout the constitution of urban design while holding your paper degrees screaming from your rooftops of what is best for Denver with little urban experience under your belt. Go take a walk around the site. Go drive past it on I-25 and look up at the brown, dark disgrace that sits on the "opportune" hill overlooking the city. Jefferson Park should count it's lucky stars that any developer would be interested in building within its boundaries. I'm sure some residents of Sun Valley and Valverde would just die at the chance to see a major developer buy up land to build an apartment complex of this sort.
Permalink Posted by : 5/05/2007 12:38:00 AM
: 5/05/2007 12:38:00 AM
The previous two posters are laughable in that they set the bar as high as "well, this project is a change from the blighted buildings currently there and so I like it". Get real. That's not the standard this parcel deserves. Ten urban developers would have lined up with ten superior alternatives if the rezoning with the current suburban applicant (with zero urban development experience) hadn't gone through.
Post a Comment
Permalink Posted by : 5/09/2007 11:28:00 AM
: 5/09/2007 11:28:00 AM Links to this post:
<< Home
